Monday, April 16, 2012

The New Quislings

WITH THE trial of Anders Breivik now begun, we can expect a revival of the opportunism which initially marked the New Establishment's reaction to the massacre. Indeed, it is a short-odds bet that we will be reminded by Fairfax and the ABC that the Norwegian nutcase was an admirer of John Howard. So, just by way of preparation, it is well worth spending a (very) few bucks on the Kindle edition of Bruce Bawer's The New Quislings.

It is the best coverage of Breivik you will find, and Bawer's account of the delight with which the sneering, smearing left took a madman unto its corrupt and cynical heart will sound very much like what we will see once again in Australia over the months to come. Read it.

Sadly Andrew B gave the Hitler salute as an example of a right wing salute ie: open hand. He has forgotten that Hitlers party were the National Socialists and were only considered "right wing" because they were to the "right" of the Stalinist Communists. Breivik has only demonstrated that he is either seriously confused (quite likely anyway) of very much of the left.

I respectfully disagree, The NSDAP was socialist in name only, as were The Bolsheviks who perverted socialism. As totalitarians they were two sides of the same coin. Complete subservience of the individual to the state. In the Socialist ideal the individual replaces the state (eventually post proletarian revolution). Extremism and subordination of the individual is the path to disaster.

According to Europol, 2010 saw 45 acts of left-wing terrorism and 0 from the right. Admittedly none of those attacks were as deadly and Breivik’s, but 45 – 0 is still an impressive imbalance.I do not recall anyone on our side blaming, say, Philip Adams or Bob Ellis for that leftist terror. The only influential right wing media personality who used language that could possibly be construed as inflammatory was Alan Jones with his stupid “tow her out to sea” comment (a remark that was later repeated by a leftoid to no reaction from the press). Dumb as it was, only someone looking for offence would see it as anything but an over-the-top figure of speech. While Breivik might have read Alan Bolt or Mark Steyn, he had certainly never heard of Jones or 2GB. And like Ms Howden’s “racist comments” from Bolt’s readers, the left will be hard put to produce any actual examples of incitement in the writings of Bolt or Steyn.Suggesting that advocates of tighter border controls are responsible for Breivik’s deeds is about as logical as blaming writers critical of capitalism for the Baader Meinhof gang.

The best article on Breivik was in the latest Journal of Creation, which prised apart his written manifesto to reveal an ideology based on neoDarwinian evolution. Breivik had developed theories of eugenics that always seem to fall out of that worldview at some stage, like a splinter working its way to the surface.Brevik was a big fan of the big H (Adolf, not John), and his life's work. Apparently murdering kids is a good way to get the rest of the world onto your page. Of course the luvvies would prefer to associate him with Christianity - the source of all ethical incorrectness (they would like to say evil but there is no such thing as evil in secularism).This guy is not a nutter. He is just living his own secular dream.

Fascinating to watch this worldview disaster played out as a war between those who identify with either right or left secular political factions.The right lean more towards rationalism and modernism, where the left lean more towards romanticism, but it's all just post modern dualism. There is no genuine right or left, just a bunch of individuals living out their own private ideologies.